Comprehensive Disability Bill (Hansard, 14 October 2003)

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
asked Her Majesty's Government: What consideration they have given to the case for a comprehensive Bill on disablement.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)
My Lords, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will publish a draft Bill later this year which will take forward our manifesto commitment to extend basic rights and opportunities for disabled people. I am sure that my noble friend will in due course share his views with the House on whether he regards such a Bill as comprehensive.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response, which is fine as far as it goes, but has she heard reports, as I have, that the Government have no intention of including the new disability Bill in the Queen's Speech, on the flimsy ground that it will require extensive consultation? She knows that we have been consulting on those issues for more than four years. We do not need any further consultation. Is my noble friend aware that if the Bill is not brought forward in the Queen's Speech, it will be very damaging to many disabled people, who certainly 758 do not yet have full rights now and suffer discrimination? It will also be damaging to the Government because of the backlash from millions of disappointed disabled people. The idea of a draft Bill at this stage is preposterous.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, my noble friend's views on the preposterousness of a draft Bill are not widely shared. I have had it put to me that a draft Bill which exposes the issues and brings a range of viewpoints into play would be highly desirable.
I shall address the substance of my noble friend's point, which is about the status of the proposed legislation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that legislation will be passed by the end of this Parliament.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a need for further reduction and elimination of barriers which obstruct disabled people and that such a Bill should cover mental disablement as well as physical? I declare an interest, being disabled myself from World War II.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, we certainly expect such a Bill to increase or widen the definition of disability as well as covering public sector duties and access to premises, private clubs and so on. The issue of mental health, as the noble Lord will understand, is difficult, but the definition of disability at the moment is that a condition is long-standing and has a substantial, adverse impact on the ability to perform day-to-day duties. If somebody with a mental health problem or learning difficulty fits that definition, he already comes within the existing DDA.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, a Joint Select Committee which 1 chair is examining the draft of the mental incapacity Bill. 1 understand also that the Department of Health is considering a mental health Bill. Those two Bills, alongside the disability Bill, which my noble friend has mentioned, would form a troika. If they were all on the statute book by time of the next election, that would be a considerable achievement.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I would welcome that too. My noble friend presses me on the form of scrutiny of such a draft Bill. The Government have not yet made their decision, but one possibility is clearly a Select Committee. The other is a Joint Committee of both Houses. I am sure that, whatever happens, your Lordships would wish to be involved in the scrutiny process.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, does the Minister agree that legislation is one thing but example is another? Does she recall that I have previously raised in this House the difficulties that Portcullis House presents to disabled people? She has had correspondence with its managers and they have assured her that they will try to make it more amenable for disabled people and, in particular, for disabled people to be able to work there. Their only reply was 759 that you could be "accompanied" around it. If you were working there, you certainly could not have another paid person to accompany you to open the doors and deal with the obstacles for disabled people. Is the Minister able to update us on whether there has been any progress in improving the comparatively newly built Portcullis House?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, my understanding is, but I shall check again, that as result of the perfectly proper pressure from the noble Baroness, the door handles, for example, are being changed, so that people who are in a wheelchair or have a disability can more easily open the doors. Issues such as that have been taken on board. I know that the architects have carried out the equivalent of a disability audit of that building in response to the pressure from your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Addington
My Lords, do the Government agree that it is about time that we allowed any new commission or following-on body to get away from an individual-case, reactive approach to ensuring that the law is enforced and to have the power to take on a more far-seeing and preventive approach to any disability issue?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is pressing for the DRC to take up wide-ranging issues such as that. It is a difficult issue, because it could very well cut across the role of, for example, the Health and Safety Executive. I shall give an example. Approximately one-third of people on incapacity benefit have either a mental health or a learning difficulty—largely mental health depression and stress. One could seek to deal with issues of discrimination on the basis of the DRC. What seems to me more helpful—and this issue, too, has been raised in your Lordships' House—is to have the Health and Safety Executive working with employers, as it is doing, putting out new guidance and strengthening the enforcement proceedings, first, in order to avoid the problem arising and, secondly, to ensure appropriate rehabilitation strategies.

§ Lord Higgins
My Lords, will the Government comment on the first legislative review of the Disability Rights Commission and will they do so in advance of the publication of the draft Bill?

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the comments of the DRC on inclusion proposals, even before changes that will take place in October 2004, we have already implemented approximately 70 per cent of the recommendations of the Disability Rights Taskforce. Given the proposals that are coming through in October 2004 in terms of the employment directive which, as the noble Lord will know, covers 1 million employers, 7 million people and 600,000 disabled people, together with the proposed draft legislation, I am confident that we will be addressing the DRC's concerns.

§ Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, is the Minister aware that a growing number of elderly 760 disabled people require help in the home with such basic things as having a bath? Is she also aware of the incredible cuts in the use of the taxi card for people who cannot use public transport? That certainly is the case with Westminster City Council.

§ Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I do not want to be unhelpful, but the degree to which local authorities respond to the day-to-day needs of disabled people is wide of the Question, which is about a comprehensive disability Bill. However, if the noble Baroness would like to write to me about any particular local authority, I shall do my best to make inquiries and respond to her.